James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 9 7. 1 0 3 B A T T I N GA V E R A G E S . T i m e s Inns. notont. R u n s. M o s tin a nInns. M r .A .C. M a c L a r e n 1 9 2 8 7 9 2 4 4 Average. 5 1 . 7 0 Mr.S. M .Crosfield 5 2 1 3 1 5 8* 4 3 . 6 6 A .W a r d 4 0 6 1 3 0 3 1 6 2 3 8 - 3 2 B a k e r 3 6 2 1 2 1 9 1 8 6 35-85 Tyldesley 3 2 2 9 9 0 1 7 4 3 3 F .H .S u g g 3 4 3 9 7 2 1 2 2 3 1 - 3 5 I ' A n s o n 7 1 1 3 2 5 0 2 2 M r .C. R. Hartley... 1 0 1 1 9 7 4 1 21.88 Mr.S. M .Tindall 1 3 0 2 4 4 8 6 18.76 C .S m i t h 2 8 3 4 6 6 5 8 18.64 P a u l 1 1 0 2 0 2 6 5 18.36 Briggs 3 5 2 5 8 1 7 4 1 7 . 6 0 Mr.A. N. Hornby 1 7 4 1 9 6 3 2 15.07 Cuttell 3 2 3 4 1 5 4 7 1 4 - 3 1 M o l d 2 4 1 0 1 4 9 2 6* 1 0 . 6 4 H a l l a m 3 3 7 2 0 9 2 7* 8 . 0 3 Radcliffe 5 3 1 1 4* 5 . 5 0 Thefollowing also batted : Ellis (5-5) and Thomas (4) . B O W L I N GA V E R A G E S . Briggs Cuttell M o l d H a l l a m B a k e r I ' A n s o n Overs. Maidens. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 1 1 4 9 3 4 0 2 2 9 4 1 4 0 Average. 1 6 . 3 8 1 0 3 9 . 2 4 1 8 1 8 1 3 1 0 2 1 7 - 7 7 7 5 9 - 22 6 1 1 5 7 1 8 8 1 7 . 8 5 9 5 2 - 4 4 2 1 1 6 5 1 9 0 18.34 5 4 . 4 1 8 1 3 8 7 19-71 5 9 1 8 1 0 7 4 26.75 Thefollowing bowled once only : Ellis (8-3-22-1), Sugg (F. H.) (2-0-14-0), and Tyldesley (1-0-10-0). Hallam and Briggs each delivered 3 wides , and MoldandBaker1each. Cuttell delivered 5n o-balls andM o l d1. L E I C E S T E R S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1897. Captain : C. E. DeTrafford . Hon. Secretary : T. Burdett, Saxe Coburg Street , Leicester . LEICESTERSHIRE'S one ground for satisfaction was that Derbyshire , in the system of counting for the championship , was below them . As a matter of fact ,while the Derbyshire Eleven failed to win a matchat all , Leicestershire's one victory was over Derbyshire . Yet few would be found seriously to argue that Leicestershire were the better side . Still , it must be admitted that luck wasaltogether against themthroughout the season . Tolose such a fine all -round cricketer as Pougherpractically for the whole of the summer, and his bowling altogether , was a crushing blow of itself . But in other ways fortune was against them. In bowling , with Pougher away, and in his absence Woodcock and Geesonthe mainstays , there was little chance, as the wickets were, of getting the best , if any, of the Counties out for anything like small scores . T h e batting was, perhaps , more unreliable . The cares of the captaincy appeared to weigh on Mr. De Trafford ; in any case he was not so successful as a run-getter . Inbatting , indeed , Leicestershire was particularly weak-weaker perhaps than any other County of the year. E 2